Women are becoming more violent towards their partners

Shocking figures have revealed that the number of women who have been charged with domestic violence-related assault has soared by 159 per cent over the past eight years.

The figures, from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, show 2336 women faced court on charges of domestic violence in 2007, mainly for bashing their husbands, compared with just 818 in 1999.

….The figures show that although the number of women prosecuted for general assault remained stable between 1999 and 2007, there was an increase of 11 per cent a year in the number of women prosecuted for domestic violence.

During the same period, domestic violence charges against men rose by 2.3 per cent a year.

I am at a loss to understand why this is. Does anyone have a theory about why this is happening? Leave a comment if you do.

I wrote before about the problem of domestic violence against males, on the first day I started my blog. It turns out that these Australian numbers are echoing the numbers in Canada and the UK that I cited in that post:

In the event, the CASI method found relatively high levels of male victimisation, to the extent that men appear to be at equal risk to women of domestic assault (4.2% of both sexes reported an assault in the last year).

An estimated 7% of women and 6% of men in a current or previous spousal relationship encountered spousal violence during the five years up to and including 2004, according to a comprehensive new report on family violence.

Here is a related research paper on the problem of domestic violence against men, writen by Dr. Linda Kelly, a professor of Law at Indiana University School of Law.

39 thoughts on “Women are becoming more violent towards their partners”

It’s interesting. My take on the whole thing is that women are a protected class in the family court system and there is an ideological agenda in asserting that men are the violent, dangerous gender and women are the victims.

A recent example of this is Harry Reids statement that unemployment would cause more men to start beating their wives:

So the narrative, you see, is that most men are dangerous brutalizers who will beat and rape women and women are at grave risk to men.

I do admit that this is sadly often true and I pray that my two daughters will marry husbands who will never treat them badly. But one has to ask WHY do feminists and liberals pursue this topic most passionately and heatedly, even to the point of using fake statistics?

I think the answer is pretty clear. Liberals want the state to be supreme and see the nuclear family as a threat. They also resent what they perceive as a subservient role for women as stay at home mothers and want the state to be in charge of raising children, instead of parents with traditional values.

To this end they will aggressively push ANYTHING that accomplishes the demise of families, even labeling men as dangerous. The fact of the matter is that STATISTICALLY, the safest place for a woman to be is at home with her husband.

Now contrast this with the absolute silence that liberals have when it comes to the patterns of violence among children raised by single mothers. If liberals were truly concerned about reducing violence, they’d be promoting marriage. The truth of the matter is that liberals care nothing about violence whatsoever. Their main aim to enforce a type of utopian equality under absolute state authority.

And they have largely succeded. Perhaps this is why God says He will send His servant in Malachi 4:6 that

“He will turn the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers; or else I will come and strike the land with a curse”

I know very much about the divorce courts and the family court system, as well as the double standard on male-female violence. It’s really bad – everything is done with the assumption that only men can be violent, and all the statistics I cited showing that women are equally violent are basically ignored. It is VERY VERY important for men to talk to women about these things and dump them at the slightest hint of a victim mentality. You would think that women, who expect to marry men and raise a family with them, would know about all the challenges that men face from institutionalized misandry (feminism), but they largely do not. And that is why men have to be very careful about starting families.

I call myself a feminist, but for me, it’s not about replacing one injustice with another but respecting each other’s rights. One big problem with proving that women can be violent as well is that there have been instances in which men reported stalking or abuse by women to the police and been laughed out of the stations. It’s a dangerously ignorant assumption that women are incapable of violence and that only men perpetrate it. A 4’10” woman with a pistol and an accurate aim is just as dangerous as a 6’6″ man with the same weapon and accuracy. Besides, most men have been raised not to hit women, so often they don’t physically strike women who strike them. You are absolutely right about taking care in starting families, but that is true of both sexes. Misandry is not the same thing as feminism because there are plenty of feminists who are happily married wives and mothers. Misandrists hate men and are incapable of healthy relationships. Misandrists are also incapable of raising emotionally sons or even daughters because they will inevitably convey their negativity to their children.

Thanks. I am sometimes pretty mean about feminism of the kind that hurts men and children, but I favor equal-opportunity feminism. For example, I supported Michele Bachmann in the last election. (I liked her because she was conservative. It didn’t bother me at all that she was a woman, because she obviously loved men and kids)

My guess is that the number of abusive incidents hasn’t changed, it is merely the number of women charged that has changed.

Personally I am at a loss to know if this is a good thing, indicitive of a cultural shift away from the “men are always bad and women always good” script, or a bad thing, indicitive of a loss of shame and honour that men would be more willing to turn in women who “beat them up”.

When a man and woman become violent, the man is blamed even when the woman initiates the violence, because the man usually dominates. Therefore, men are considered guilty even when they don’t initiate, so the law (as encouraged by feminist propaganda) goes after the men.

Since the laws act against men and not women due to feminist propaganda (hopefully that’s changing[?]) then women can initiate violence with relative impunity.

Obviously, if women think they can attack men without repercussions, the incidence of female violence will increase… because many women are violent as many other women will tell you.

Q: Why did you do it?
A: Because I can.

In the usual scenario, a man loses either way. If he hits her back, he loses and, if he DOESn’t hit her back, he loses. Men are in a no-win situation.(Please see falling marriage statistics.)

The only solutions are avoidance of marriage and massively “paranoid” pre-nuptial agreements designed to protect men from their wives. Naive 23 year old lovebirds rarely have the foresight to write massively paranoid pre-nuptial agreements.

Priest: Do you promise not to beat your husband?
Bride: I do.

As I run around The City, I see young and older women hitting men with amazing frequency and the men cringing and backing away. Feminist propaganda seems to be turning men into submissives which is apparently the desired outcome.

I walked by a schoolyard recently and saw a 5 year old girl slap another 5 year old girl hard in the face. Violence is violence, it isn’t gender-specific and it’s effectiveness is learned early. Where did she learn that? What will that little girl grow up to be?

The old idea that “men aren’t supposed to hit women” has ignored the idea that women aren’t discouraged from hitting men (initiating violence)and that the violence will continue as long as women continue to initiate it.

When I was younger, any dispute generated the question “who started it?” but the current thinking seems to be that women can do what they want and that men are guilty. Please note the massive female violence against men in the film/TV industry.

Women are becoming more violent IN ADDITION TO the numerous methods of psychology they already employ to control men. Feminist propaganda re: domestic violence is only the current edition. Any man who makes a statement about violentcontrolling women is labelled a “misogynist”. They call it “ad HOMinem” for a reason.

If we REALLY wanted to do something about domestic violence we’d focus on female violence AND…(pause for effect) not the fact that men hit women but the reasons WHY men hit women. Why do men hit women despite the fact they are discouraged from doing so from birth? Is it an action or a re-action?

There’s a saying out there that “men like bitches.” Is that a true statement? Unlikely. Who promoted that idea? But it’s an idea that will keep a lot of women single as men step away from the idea of legal unions. Who likes a bitch? No one that I know of. We may watch Judge Judy on TV (I don’t) but who would want to live with her? She’s a classic example of someone who confuses stupid rudeness with power or proof that “power corrupts”.

When a 6 year old friend hit her 12 year old brother and he hit her back (and she complained that “HE HIT ME”), he was told not to hit his sister. When he asked, “what are you supposed to do if a girl hits you?” no one had a real answer. In the adult world, when/if complaints are made to the police, the complaints are frequently ignored.

My feeling is, if you marry before you’re 30, you’re naive and if you marry after 30, you’re stupid.

Again I say, if liberals were really concerned about REDUCING VIOLENCE, they’d be promoting (heterosexual) marriage. The fact that they only marriage they ever champion is homosexual marriage should really tell you something.

THings that appear to be one way based on personal observation are very often not the case when you look at carefully collected and analyzed data. To say, “Women are becoming more violent IN ADDITION TO the numerous methods of psychology they already employ to control men. Feminist propaganda re: domestic violence is only the current edition” tells me very little about why violence might be rising. But it tells me a lot about what your experience has probably been (or MIke’s).

I’m interested in knowing what’s really going on out there. The small amount of reading I did says that some of the increase is due to women now being reported for stuff they’ve been doing all along.So according to the one study I looked at (and one study doesn’t tell the full picture), they’re not more violent; they’re just finally being counted due to changes in law enforcement practice.

More research can help answer basic questions on what the contributing factors are. Feminism? I don’t know how you can draw that conclusion. It seems kind of like a “catchall” answer, with only one possible solution: get rid of it. But there’s much more going on there. Aren’t you interested in what’s beneath that other than the same old arguments that men and women throw at each other (she started it; he started it; and on and on and on…)

Your experience is violent women. To that I’d have to ask, where are you hanging out? My experience is that women aren’t violent, but are subjected to a lot of movies (and about 95% of movies are produced by men) in which they’re encourage to fire rocket launchers while wearing miniskirts. Your experience isn’t wrong. My experience isn’t wrong. But neither of us represents the entire picture.

Men like bitches? It all sounds anecdotal to me, and I’m not sure that it helps get at the real issue which is an important one to address: how we treat each other.

McSpinster, I think it goes a bit deeper and is much more involved. I have noticed that women who have great relationships with their father and come from good families avoid the violence (ie trust father = trust men= healthy relationship=high self esteem=educated=morales etc….). The reason I bring this up – I HAVE SEEN IT AND IT WORKS !!!!!

It made me believe in relationships and marriage. In addition, women that has a poor relationship with her father or sees the father abuse the mother has low self esteem and can not control themselves behind “closed doors” ( personal opinion / experience here – they think that is “normal” and have been “desensitized” to violent behavior between men and women ). I always ask about the relationship with a woman father – if it is good, they “ALWAYS” are more rational / logical and can communicate better (I know there are exceptions but I havent seen it to date). Unless, there is a strong conviction to avoid that violent interaction – it is seen as normal ( btw, how can it ? It is glamorized in the media).

The only hope I see for families is those who are very serious, dedicated, and disciplined on the teachings of Christian marriage ( again another oxymoron in todays culture) of :

Both are required to be 100 % on for Christ and each other.
There is no room for straying from the Christian walk or personal autonomy. It will destroy the family unit within a very short period of time.

Feminism can’t be undone. It’s too valuable. Of course, a secondary effect is that it makes men realize they may not want to play the old male stereotype either. Let women take care of themselves, right?

Feminism isn’t the problem, it’s just a tool in the war of the same old problem- the struggle for power.

Where’s the best place to learn new methods and tactics? From your opponent, right?

Further thoughts on this – it is a absolutely necessary to have a have a knock out / drag out fight before any sort of commitment. This is a great gauge to check temperament, compatibility, , resolution conflict ability, communication and a host of other check points. This will prove later to be a a example to children.

Quite to often – this is done WWWAAAYYY to late and the results are devastating.

My experience tells me DQ spot on ( thank you for the very insightful post).

Men ( including myself) often dismiss when women attack (ie strike/hit) men for numerous reasons:

1. it doesn’t hurt
2. Men are quite used to hysterical behavior from women (remember women were NOT allowed to vote till 1920 FOR THIS FACT or hold office).
3. Embarrassing
4. Dont know any better that loss of control is a MAJOR RED FLAG.
5. In the majority of DV cases, it is quite often the MAN is arrested despite the women starting the incident.
5. Failure to recognize the double standard that the majority of women have (-ie (95%) impose on men – This is having higher standards for others than you have for yourself.

With that being said- I believe the reason why there are more incidents with men is a very high number is unreported when the women is the instigator ( that is my opinion and experience- I cant even began to tell you how many times my ex-wife was verbally, emotionally, and physically abusive. In retrospect, by letting it go – it just made it worse and she lost control numerous times). With that being said, ANY form of emotional, verbal, or physical loss of self control and it is over – I am out the door – I will not stand for it.

PS: This probably doesn’t belong here, but here’s an article about feminism that debunks the myth that women in the 50s had it better. It gives a lot of conclusions based on research. Very interesting. The title: “When We Hated Mom.”

Yes, little did we all know but stay at home moms in the 50s were highly criticized much the way feminists are today.

“ONE of the most enduring myths about feminism is that 50 years ago women who stayed home full time with their children enjoyed higher social status and more satisfying lives than they do today. All this changed, the story goes, when Betty Friedan published her 1963 best seller, “The Feminine Mystique,” which denigrated stay-at-home mothers. Ever since, their standing in society has steadily diminished.”

Mara suggested that the higher percentage of males in prison means that men are more violent than women. If that is so, then what do you make of the fact that there is a much higher percentage of blacks and hispanics in prison than whites? Does the same logic apply?

Also, saying that a statistic was lower in the past because of “unreported” incidents makes no sense. If they were unreported, then we have no way of knowing they existed.

Men are more violent when they are raised without fathers. And the reason why men are raised without fathers is because women have dumped religion, courting and parents as aids to matchmaking, and are instead relying on feelings and feminism, which denies the traditional roles of men. Feminism has taught women that men have no special qualities that are needed, and that women should enjoy premarital sex and choose men based on shallow criteria, like appearance and non-judgementalism. In short, they cannot evaluate men for the roles of husbands and fathers, but they make babies with them anyway, and then the babies grow to become criminals. Women’s own overconfidence in their feelings, their embrace of feminism, and their defiance of male leadership and authority in the home, are the root causes of the problems we are having.

In the old days, women appreciated the calming effect that husbands had on them, and they chose men who were good at defending Christianity and explaining morality persuasively. Now, women don’t want men who are good at Christianity and good at morality – women don’t want to be told that they are wrong on spiritual things, or to be told that there are real moral standards that they can be judged against. So they choose secular, relativistic men and then make babies with them. The men leave. The women complain that the secular, immoral men THEY FREELY CHOSE are acting secular and immoral. They blame the men, and then vote for bigger government and higher taxes, impoverishing the few good men who are left. Then they complain about violence against women coming from fatherless men that they themselves created.

Feminists created the very mess that they are now trying to solve. And their solution is fascism. Top down control of the individual and the family through massive taxation and government. So you have mothers taking fathers to court so that female judges can have the fathers grounding of their daughter overturned, and female judges mandating that children be put into day care for “socialization”.

Allow me to point out the rather obvious fact that a man is involved in the conception of each and every fatherless child (even if all he did was donate sperm). Why do you claim that it’s ALL the woman’s fault? Why is the woman who chose the incompetent man with whom to produce children any more at fault than the man who chose the incompetent woman with whom to produce children? Blaming ONE sex for a situation that, by definition, takes TWO sexes to be brought about makes no sense.

Instead of blaming one sex, how about we go about changing society as a whole (male AND female)? That means dumping radical feminism AND dumping the acceptability of men “sowing their wild oats”.

ECM and I have talked about this, and what we decided was that men are too stupid and evil to resist the offer of free sex, even if it means the end of the family, and Western civilization. So, I am not sure if men can be blamed, since they just have no self-control in this area. Except for me, of course. But that’s because I have Wintery super powers.

Er, that just sounds like a really lame excuse. Not for you of course, but for the general male populace. And I think the general male populace can do better anyway. I know a number of selected specimens who have.

I am trying to get you to attack by putting forward a ridiculous double standard on personal responsibility!

Here’s what we need to do. We need churches to stop lowering the bar on marriage, and to educate people about why marriage matters to children, and how dangerous feminism (and socialism/fascism, which is the outworking of feminism) really are.

The divorce rate is through the roof as traditional marriage models have failed. The Christian model is the only one that can stand against the internal /external /spiritual influences that will wreck a relationship and family

Lol… Thank you for proving my point McSpinster. You cant compare Muslim vs. Judeo/Christian mariage as they are in direct opposition of each other as is the culture and value of women ( comparing apples to oranges). Dont you think a Jewish marriage model would be more accurate than a Muslim ?

The media has infiltrated the perception of “Christian American women (CAW)” who want a Sunday church going man that is devoid of Christian leadership (following the American dream) in the home / relationship / family vs a true partnership in “becoming one” and following Christ (demanding). In other words, CAW’s want to be honored and have their needs met without meeting their husbands/ families and hence the incredible number of divorces in CHRISTIAN families.

With that being said, may I propose a question ? Drumroll………..

Who is getting the better deal when the husbands puts the wife needs above his own or the wife is honoring her husband ?
The answer should be pretty obvious – it is a “level playing field” but requires a serious dedication of both people to Christ and putting the other persons needs above their own.
If that is done, something spectacular will occur – two people actually becoming one…

Subservience is built into the practice and faith of many religions and cultures. That is my point. And I don’t think it’s any more conducive to good marriages in judaism than in Christianity or Islam or in secular households for the simple reason that it has nothing to do with spiritual progress. That’s what good marriages are built on, and God, not the husband, not the wife, is the one who directs that progress.

Did Islam, Confucius, Buddah die for the atonement of mankind ? Christ humbled Himself to the point of death. Service/sacrifice for others is central to the Kingdom of God and Christianity and not Islam. Other religions are philosophies or conduct of behavior at best vs. a revelation of God incarnate.

I would strongly suggest looking at the context (as usual) and think about it.

By submitting to each other – there is no unilateral decisions that wreck relationships, families, and children. To ignore the “two becoming one” is to invite disaster as we now see today in Christian families let alone secular. In addition, by actually doing what the scripture instructs is to actually guarantee success and protection. To think otherwise is flat out disobedience to the Word of God and the intended roles for men/women, husband/wife, and the Body of Christ (context) – the scripture is pretty clear on this.

My context is a comment you made about wives being obedient to husbands. This is a different proposition than two people submitting to each other. I support that as long as it goes both ways. Actually, three ways: to God and then to each other.